|
From: Gavin_King/Cirrus%<CI...@ci...> - 2002-02-08 03:32:11
|
>> Im guessing that, when in doubt, assume association (ie. many-to-one) >Ah, here is my original question. I think it used to be that an >association was simply a property with a Persistent class as its type. >Do I understand that you have replace this with a new element >many-to-one? (I see the syntax in the dtd, but I don't want to assume >too much about the semantics.) Yes. many-to-one is used for associations now. I know - it was easier the old way but this is clearer, more flexible and necessary now we ditched Persistent. Its all documented in the tutorial.aft in CVS now. >> differentiating many-to-many vs composite-element follows exact same rules >> as many-to-one vs component. But we can only tell with arrays. >OK. I haven't thought much about array contents. I will dig into this >tonight (i.e., several hours from now... I have to go to my "real" job). Hah! Hey I'm a real fan of not trying to do *everything* in one go. Release what you have, when you're happy with it. It doesn't have to be finished to be useful. |